I have tried using several active speakers in my home rig but they were all musically unsatisfying to mewhy do you think that is?
109 responses Add your response
Important to listen to active speakers before buying, perhaps more so. I also think that thinking about long term enjoyment is key. They often sound great out of the gates, but after a few days of listening, they fail to excite. I listened to the Kii three’s and found they delivered a smaller version of the sound I liked. I heard the D&D 8c’s had an even bigger sound so I auditioned those, but they didn’t have the sound qualities I like. I happened by a B&O store and tried the Beo50’s and Beo90s and while the build quality is superlative, B&O has to learn how to set up speakers in their stores for demos. I will keep auditioning to try to find the shoe that fits. I recommend extended auditions if possible. |
Several notes: 1) Active speakers (monitors) such as most of the higher-end ones being discussed here are by in large no-nonsense and demanding professional tools. Not only are they not designed to be eye-catching and decorative, as a class they must needs be ruthlessly revealing yet highly listenable at the same time. Thus, they are very apt to tell one everything that’s wrong (or right!) with what comes before them, from recording technique, to mastering, to one’s electronics, to their position and placement in the room (studio). If they don’t sound good to you, it’s very likely that the problem lies elsewhere, including what one expects or is accustomed to. Best possible program material and kit is a given. 2) Well-designed, especially higher-end, active speakers are a highly integrated system. The physical design, the amplification, and the drivers are all rigorously designed to work specifically with the other components in the speaker. Moreover, actives work with either a line-level or a *digital* input (see below). The result is a remarkable degree of flexibility in design throughout. That’s profoundly different from a passive system where the input is an already fully amplified signal. The passive design has to be substantially generic, and try to both accommodate the quirks of an unknown amplifier and crossover the high-powered input to the sundry drivers. That’s challenging and expensive to do well, and it actually allows for less flexibility in design. 3) Active monitors fall into two categories, analog and DSP. The difference is rather obvious. The older, analog, approach is just that, the input signal remains analog throughout the processing, amplification, and reproduction chain. The analog processing, however, can be and often is highly sophisticated. PSI, Questeds, and others, are excellent examples. The DSP monitors are newer and typically rely on digital wizardry to achieve their often remarkable sonic results. Kii three’s, D&D’s, and several others are the hot new guys on the block. Overall, both types have their merits and, to some degree, drawbacks. Analog monitors only accept a line-level analog input, and then have an assortment of level and EQ controls available (on the back). That makes driving them and setting them up rather straightforward. DSP monitors will ordinarily accept an analog input, but often also accept, and generally prefer, a digital input, usually @ 96kHz. Even an analog input will be converted to digital for processing. The result can be amazing sound, but the setup and configuration, even the volume control, can also be challenging and complex. Your choice. |
The very first time I heard active speakers were the John Bowers Active 1's waayyy back in 1986. They were shockingly dynamic! There really is something special about getting all those Inductors & Capacitors out from between the amps & drivers. Audiophiles think that "control" is being taken away from them because they cannot choose their own flavor of amplification... but that control is being transferred to the speaker designer... It took me a LONG time to finally buy a pair of actives...... and am now a very happy owner of ADAM S3H's. Yes they are digital, and they are very revealing, dynamic, and fun to listen to. Yes they are a pro monitor, and I have a studio and do mixing.... But these are truly amazing speakers and worthy of any audiophile to consider. Focal also makes really good powered monitors (and not digital). They are prettier than the ADAMs, but in a a side by side comparison, I chose the ADAM. |
I prefer partially self-powered speakers, for built in bass power only. I'm looking at Von Schweikert Aktive series and have heard their Ultra series. Great speakers. Legacy audio offers similar type speakers with DSP as well. Full active speakers are restrictive in the end unless it is just the match one desires. I've heard a few dozen and some are very good, but not the equal of my passive speakers or the Von Schweikerts. |
No one mentioned it here, but there is a fundamental differrence between a) near field listening (e.g. at a mixing desk or desktop) and b) listening in a living room. Studio monitors are usually very resolving and dynamic sounding in near field setups where they can be very convincing and satisfying, but they can generally also be very disappointing (muddiness, harschness, coloration, uneavenness, boominess) if you try to use them in your living room, unless you pad your room walls like a studio (diffusors, absorbers, bass traps, ...), which is a route I personnally do not want to go. I know very few speakers that do the trick in an untreated living room, if this is the goal. My recommendation would be to look at speakers based on 1) dipole principle, also for the bass (reducing room interaction and masking by acoustic energy that gets stored/released in cavities/pannels), 2) as constant directivity as possible (reducing coloration of reflected sounds) and 3) active drive in a separate box (reducing the difficult to predict effect on frequency response and distorsion of speaker cables and crossover components, the high level amplifier outputs having to deal only with the easy load of a single driver). I believe LXmini or LX521 would be my best recommendations, while giving you a lot of room for tweaking and upgrades (DIY or turn key systems available, DSP or AnalogSP, you can use your own amps or Hypex NCores). Cost is also very reasonnable. Sound is out of this world. |
for me, i move around alot and need to keep the number of physical units to as few as possible. i surmise that any active monitor manufacturer has the opportunity at the spec-design stage and also the actual listening stage to put an amp behind the drivers that they feel performs well. .. and i do not have to deal with the connections, an added plus. i have low-fi, JBL LSR 305's and my main set AirPulse Model 1 (A200 for the rest of the world).. i listen to these all day, every day. |
Some interesting posts here.....the first two active speaker companies the I know of were Genelec (which I represented years and years ago) and ATC (which we now import to the US as lone mountain). Both companies have a long history of "how its done" and both started primarily in studio market, where passives were very much in control of the market in the late 70s and early 80s. ATC was an owner operator so they stuck close to home, they got support early on from Pink Floyd and others in the UK. Genelec raised money and went international very early and had a significant break out hit, the 1031. For small active 2 way, this thing rocked. So much better than the passives of the day. The 1031 was used for more movies in the 80s than any other I think! Genelec made a great sounding ribbon tweeter speaker early on too, the S30, lovely speaker but it sort of faded way for unknown reasons. . I think the number one reason active is considered better than passives by many (speaker) designers is the ability to control phase. Building a speaker that's linear in phase response is a wondrous thing to behold. The other side benefits of active are easier to guess: super short cables, the right power to each driver, easy to calibrate a system for flat response with amp/driver level, easier to do a electronic crossover than a passive one and you use higher slopes with active so you can get some additional performance out of that. A lot of folks don't know that passive crossovers have a tough time with changing driver values as they heat up, changing crossover behavior. That's why in pro, you cannot have a speaker "sound different in the morning" than the night before. Brad Lone Mountain Audio |
Ok canibefrank when you pull just those words out I see my mistake and creating confusion. Thanks for asking for clarity! I meant you have the "ability to control phase" at the crossover points of the system. There are two adjustment points within the ATC active 3 way amp pack to "control" this phase parameter (at the crossover) so the acoustical sum is now in phase. You cannot do that with a passive crossover. This is a huge advantage of any true active system. Active is an electronic crossover feeding multiple amplifiers that represent each driver in the system. Active like ATC does it is an electronic 2 or 3 way crossover feeding 2 or 3 Class A/B amplifiers that are fully analog- no DSP used at all. This does not apply to a "powered" system (a power amp in front of a passive crossover). Important distinction, I see some confusion in posts on various forums mixing up "active" and "powered". Brad LoneMountain |
Active speakers will break your heart when the plate amp fails. Then you'll prolly have to throw it away unless you know how to repair it. Huh? I'm not sure why one would through away amplifiers? Why not repair them? We have amp packs that have been running 12 hours a day for 15 years+ and still work fine. Other than replacing dried out capacitors, they rarely go bad. Brystons or Pass Labs or other amps that are well built don't fail but rarely. Brad LoneMountain |
lonemountain: I meant throw the speaker away unless you know how to fix the amp. There’s no issue if you’re capable of diagnosing and repairing the problem yourself. I've had amps run forever, and had amps die young. It happens. Also, I don't like late amps, and that's what powers powered loudspeakers. YMMV. |
jburidan Are you thinking "plate amps" are Class D amps or some design that is somehow different than a "normal" rack mount amp? The circuit design and parts inside an ATC amp pack are identical to 3 of our stand alone Class A/B power amps, sharing a much larger power supply with active crossovers and three independent output channels (low/mid/high). SO the only difference between our active "amp packs" and our stand alone 3 way amps (P4) is the chassis. This is not a full range Ice Power/Hypex module stuck on the back driving a passive crossover (that's a powered speaker). Brad Lone Mountain |
@gosta. Congrats on those Quested V3110s! They are certainly among the first rank of active studio monitors and, by all accounts, altogether the equal of the PSIs that I flog. Between their sound and @ 6½ stone (they're British, after all...) they'll undoubtedly put down roots in you listening room. Did you get the custom stands as well? Horizontal or vertical? And unless you're way into pipe organ music, a sub will be superfluous with those guys. As you note, "huge spl capacity." That's one of the many virtues common to active monitors. With their tightly integrated amplifier designs, pretty much all of the better actives can crank the spl without compression until one hits their maximum, and essentially without the any danger of over-driving and harming the speaker. (Please don't feed them too much distortion or square waves, however...) The coherence, transparency and just plain musicality of Questeds and the like can be truly amazing. Undoubtedly, my PSIs put an end to my search for "better." Rock on! |
@lp2cd Haha, nothing that fancy yet. Using a pair of trash cans in plastic as stands. Good to know there are custom made stands. Vertical position as I'm using the Questeds for mid-field listening. When I got used to them and integrated them well in my room (have the woofer adjustment on -9 db at the moment - a little much but there is just a big step from -3 db), I will play them against a pair of Unity Boulders mk2. And after that the main systems. Quested have a homogenity in their sound that is very nice. Everything sounds natural, handclaps, the cash register in Money etc. Always been interested in the PSI monitors but only heard the A-17 model in a shop once. Didn't give me much impression but am sure they are very special. Would be very interesting if you had some words for them, e.g. why did you choose the A-21 model? And do you happen to have something about the RCF Mytho monitors? Another not very well-known monitor that have some rave reviews. At least very good measurements. Would like to try the 6 model. |
@gosta. Interesting. Those "trash can" stands may account for some "interesting" resonant bass interactions and effects. You may not need to spend the dime for Quested's stands, but something better should be a priority. I've no special insights into either the Unity or or RCF monitors, altho I might expect the Unitys to at least play in the same league as the Questeds. As for the PSIs, I use the A-21s as mastering monitors in a close near-field setup with a Focal CMS SUB taking the "flat" system response down to 32 Hz. They perform brilliantly. (I upgraded from Focal CMS 65s. Fine monitors, but they made everything sound too good. Great for casual listening...) The larger PSIs are for mid- or far-field listening. I've not listened to the other PSIs, but by all accounts they are as a family closely similar in sound. The A-17s would have undoubtedly worked fine for my purposes, too. PSIs are rather fussy about setup and positioning. I wouldn't expect any of them to stand out at all in a "shop" environment. PSIs tell the truth, they don't scream about themselves. |
All good recommendations, above. Now for something completely different: You should probably go listen to a pair of Meridian speakers. Everyone thinks of them for home theater but they can sound very, very good for music. One of the best 2-channel rigs I ever heard was a Meridian 3-channel system for music. I listened to a recording of Van Cliburn's Beethoven Piano Concerto No. 5 and it was sublime. Absolutely the closest reproduction I have ever heard to a real concert hall. The best part is that there is a ton of used Meridian stuff out there for sale. Meridian gear tends to be well cared for and there is a healthy dealer network. |
@lp2cd I expect the Quested to have much better control of low freq. than the Boulder. The two 8" woofers in the Boulder moves exceptionally fast at low freq. and in my opinion tend to lose some control, lots of air. The Quested you can hardly see move at all. Like a big ATC. The Boulder has an interesting flat mid from Elac with their Jet 5 ribbon mounted inside. So very different setup. Both have heavy amplification. "Small" monsters! Besides PSI 17 maybe the smallest Neumann KH80 would be really good for very near-field usage at a much lower cost. My recommendation is for anyone interested in actives to try a Neumann monitor. |
I think the major reason for active has not been said yet: linear phase. You can adjust the phase of each driver electrically, before the amps and within the electronic crossover, where this is impossible with a passive crossover. All the loss in passive crossover+ cable is another issue (lots and lots of copper) and then the not so small issue of changes to crossover behavior as voice coil temp increases. And our pro division would take issue that pros don't care about sound. We know a mix engineer that spends two days getting the snare drum sound exactly right. Or another engineer who uses different converters on every song to match the artist vision of how that song should "sound". There are people who don't care but it's rare anymore since the artists are funding most records. Brad |
"It can’t be that bad. " Well it is and it is worse than that. All of the audiophile speaker designers know that removing the crossover elements from intervening between the amp output and the speaker drivers, and performing the division of the frequency spectrum within the amplification stage, is a much better way of performing these functions. They don’t do it mostly because of resistance from the buying public. That is also the reason why in the realm where the quality of the music potentially means your reputation and career and income, ie the recording industry, active speakers are the overwhelming choice. Active speakers are more dependable at all volume levels. None of the above relates to cheap and nasty active. There is a quality level in active speakers also, but the best ecelon is as dependable a speaker as one could hope for. Dependable in the manner of being able to rely that the speaker is telling the truth about the musical selection being heard via the speaker. Studio monitoring is not about ’liking the sound’. It is about hearing the good the bad and the ugly. No jokes about the movie sounstrack. A person evaluating a recording during the production of that recording doesn’t want a rose coloured view of the proceedings. They want to hear as precisely as possible the effect of any and all manipulations they are making to the signal. Anything which interferes with how accurately the producers or final master assessors are able to accurately assess leads them to be releasing mixes which are subpar compared to what can be done on accurate monitors. The audiophile buying public are under the impression that they will get better results from using their choice of amp on passive speakers. That is not the case. The recording industry is mostly all using active speakers because they give a higher quality result than the same speaker in passive form. There is a mountain of literature about the benefiits of getting rid of intevening passive crossovers. You should do some investigation. |
Theophile! Wow, you should write a paper! Very well put. The only thing that convinces some people that the idea of engineers endlessly fussing over mixes cannot be true is some pop mixes sound absolutely awful. I have heard mix engineers complain bitterly from time to time about their work turned bad or even given to another engineer to "redo it". Sometimes the producer or the people in charge change things for reasons of their own. Most pop tunes are destined for FM airplay so sometimes the mix is set up for FM and only FM (loudness wars). Many of Katy Perry's top selling songs are examples of that. But some pop mixes turn out pretty good- there's some that are quite listenable. Halsey's Badlands was mastered by Pete Lyman who does a lot of Indie work. Interesting that on her wikipedia page for Badlands Halsey says it lacks a "proper radio hit". Brad |
@lonemountain - it was Tom Thiel, brother of Jim Thiel of Thiel audio. He hangs out in the Thiel thread sometimes. He's long removed from the business at this point, Thiel no longer exists, he's not selling anything. I'm a fan of both brands and it's funny because both designers have a fair amount in common. Both were piano players. I think I like listening to piano more than anything and both brands excel there. Jim Thiel had wanted to build active speakers but since he was building for the home audio market he didn't because he didn't think he could sell them. I assume ATC builds passive speakers for the home market for the same reason. |
ATC does build passive because some folks just want a passive. We know this is the reality of the market. But we spend a lot of time talking about active because its genuinely a step forward (and it costs the customer less for higher performance). ATC active beats ATC passive on multiple technical fronts. We have done demos at shows with the same speaker both active and passive right next to each other on the same source, using ATC amps (which have the same circuit design and output devices to the active system) and its a clear advantage to go active. The image and clarity and resolution of details is dramatically different. The "tone", meaning the spectral info, the sound character of the piano if you will, is the same. SO active versions of speakers have better imaging, greater resolution of the finer details of the music than passive versions of the same speaker even with identical power behind them. |
Active speakers properly engineered, designed and built with top parts should sound great at home or the studio. The is nothing about a studio that is different other than lower noise floor and perhaps more absorption. The problem is a"better" speaker does not always make every recording sound better. Reducing distortion reveals more and more about a recording- details or flaws that you've never heard before. Distortion in playback, regardless of source, has a masking effect that covers up details. It's the effect of getting glasses after a lifetime of blurred vision: you now really see enormous detail, but what you see is often not so pretty. You might then ask why would we ever want that, to hear how awful our recordings are. Well the benefit of hearing clearly is that you can finally hear the details the artist, engineer, mastering worked very hard to capture and reveal. You cannot appreciate a Renoir if your vision is blurry. If I play a high rez version of Michael Jackson Thriller, chances are you will hear a LOT of information you never heard before that will make you smile like never before. Or play a George Massenburg recording and the same thing will happen (here's a list: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/george-massenburg-mn0000945891/credits Play something poorly recorded and you may not be able to turn it off fast enough. Yuck! An old rock and roll recording is likely quite bad, like Led Zeppelin. Awesome music, horrible recordings (that did capture a cool moment in time anyway). You sort of have to learn to separate great music from great sound because they are not related. It's still fun to hear Elvis Presley with a band panned to one side and him to the other each with their own (very limited bandwidth) ribbon mic from 1958. But you aren't listening to be amazed by the audio quality. There's nothing you can do to fix this other than buy speakers with massive EQ built in to them and are high enough distortion you don't hear any flaws in the recording. You would not buy expensive speakers if that's the only music you listen to. But if you heard Sarah Jarosz on a fantastic pair of speakers- even if you dislike Americana-the recording is just so darn amazing its magical-a thrill in itself just to hear something that good. You'll never hear that magic on a low rez, high distortion system. That's why active is important. Its the only way to get a lot of distortion out of the speaker. Brad |
@lonemountain Exactly! I often get the sense that some people in these parts are simply EQing their system by other means. The clarity and lack of distortion with top quality active speakers/studio monitors may well tell some people more than they want to know about a recording, and such speakers can spoil a good bit of the "fun" of all the time tweaking. Myself, I’ve music to listen to. A commenter, audiokinesis, on this thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/frequency-response-or-1-db , made some very valuable and relevant observations about the desirability of a truly flat speaker response, and linked to a very interesting technical review of D & D 8c monitors. Well worth the read. Oh, and BTW, for much more than just reference, I’ve listened to Sarah Jarosz & Co. live from 10’ away. Very, VERY, good... |
Agree fully. And rather expensive and time consuming EQing. I can’t myself really see the excitement in trying to find a different (better?) sound from changing the direction of some very expensive cable. And certainly not a digital one. Once you get in there though, it seems very hard to get out. Warmest recommendation for the master storyteller Guy Clark’s live recording "Keepers". When he was at his best. Best ever? Unfortunately not on Tidal at the moment. Like a lot of his recordings. Shame. |
I listen to a lot of mono LPs and electrical 78s. Despite 78s inadequacies in frequency range and flat recording response, their dynamics and tonality often are mesmerizing (along with the performances). The sound in my almost high end system, washes over me and fills the room. I'm just wondering if a speaker like a powered bass Von Schweikert VR55K would sound as full and lush as my Legacy Focus speakers. Once I got to almost high end equipment, cabling and tweaks ($70K worth), sound anomalies don't bother me anymore. Poorly engineered recordings do sound less involving (although my wife likes her heavy metal and rock LPs/CDs). I haven't heard a Led Zeppelin LP sound as good as a Steely Dan recording. I latter group paid enormous attention to the recording technique. |
I would say the Doobie Brothers is the group that had the overall highest standard when it comes to recording technique in the 70’s and 80’s. And why not musicality as well. Just listen to Takin’ it to the streets. Not a hint of distortion or bad EQing or painful compression. Just perfect. On active speakers playing at 105db... :-) |
ATC has very revealing Midrange but I think they lack in Bass overall across their speaker range due to how they load the drivers up. If you are requiring something thats Fatigue Free but has the transparency of Studio but with a more musical presentation (Warm Emotional) I would Highly Recommend the Quested Active Speaker Line with a tube Pre-amplifier. The Bass is tuneful and just right, the highs are smooth and the midrange is almost as revealing as the ATC but tends to be warmer and smoother and more forgiving on lesser recordings, which overall works better especially with Digital Recordings. |
There's several pair of dsp8000's on ag for under $10k and if your listening room is big enough they really are the best i've been able to assemble for the money, compared to quality separates, I mean. As much as I liked the sound of the Ki3's at axpona I was a little disturbed when I put my hand on the top of a speaker and it was vibrating like crazy..It was wrapped in rubber so noise was deadened, but still. |
gosta: Doobie Bros, a Don Landee and Ted Templeman project, they did a lot of cool stuff in the 70s through 80s. A power house those two! I do think takin it to the streets while a great song and album but not my sonic favorite of the era. Good bass playing, but poor low end on that record! My 70s sonic best would be Dreamboat Annie (Heart), Fleetwood Mac (white album) 1975, Crime of the Century (Supertramp) 1974, and Aja (Steely Dan) 1977, Dark Side of the Moon (Pink Floyd) 1973 and personal favorite Court and Spark (Joni Mitchell) 1974. All sonically excellent albums with incredible low end, sound incredible on vinyl. I used all of them for demo back in a hi end hi fi store in the mid to late 70s. |
Sorry to hijack this thread a little but musical tips hopefully never bad. lonemountain: You're probably right about the missing low end but my point were more about the distorsion free completely clean recording. Pump up the volume on your ATC to 105 db and play Takin' it to the streets. Frightening. You expect something to explode when they attack the bass and drums. Sorry Ican't say the same about Crime of the Century. Historic record with fantastic music, but lots of distortion and edgy sounds. At least for me on CD and Tidal. A hidden secret maybe: France Gall "Concert public Concert privé". There you have the incredible bass player Sonny Thompson (know too little about him unfortunately) doing all solos and also all the melody playing. The rest of the band merely joining in. The first cd is acoustic (almost...) and certainly have the deepest possible electric bass. Great music. |
@gosta Crime of Century was probably at its best on original vinyl. There are many digital versions and some are quite compressed. I like MFSL CD version personally. Many of the remasters get goosed to sound impressive and lose the balance that made the original such a smash success. I still can’t believe how good Muddy Walters Folk Singer (Tidal) sounds! In fact I have to say that on the whole most 70’s recordings tend to be better than anything since the 90’s. |
@gosta We'll there you could be right. I listen to most of my stuff on ATC's, as do several of those artists in my list. Since ATC's tell it like it is, you are right, some of the later CD re-releases and remixes can be quite awful. This is quite obvious in the studio. I know some of the folks involved in those records and they hate some of these rereleases too. Funny how little control the artist and the original engineers have over that- the record company owns it and does what it wants. Shadorne brings that up too, the original vinyl of Crime of the Century was awesome and some of the later CD rereleases and re mixes were not. Much less the case now, the record companies are mostly gone. From my perspective, that "sound" of that CD is not the speaker. The ATC SE50 we take to trade shows sounds absolutely glorious at 105dB SPL IF the recording is good. All about the source. And from an ATC perspective, all about the truth. So if the remix is bad, it should sound that way. Brad |
a recommendation: The AirPulse Model 1-A200 or if you have more money the A300. Get the stands as well. I have the Model 1 and the midrange is as good as it gets at this price range. These are engineered to be studio monitors as well as hifi boxes... if there is a powered monitor better at 800-1200 USD per pair I don't know about them... there is a review of the new A300 in Sound on Sound. |
I know that this isn’t a speaker building forum.... But my last set of speakers were built entirely by me. I used an electronically crossed 3 way line array. I had 16 3.5 inch mid ranges, 32 dome tweeters, and one 12 inch sub woofer per channel. I used an analog Rane crossover between the preamp and the power amps. The tweeter array had a 20 watt RMS/ch power amp, the mid range array had a 100 amp RMS/ch, and the woofers had a 375 watt RMS/ch. There are many reason why active crossovers can be better than passive ones. Let me list some(they are easier to do if you have a multiple speaker line array, btw): 1. Effectively (up to) twice the 'real' power of the amplifiers themselves, as nothing is lost in the crossover components 2. Reduced intermodulation distortion 3. Elimination of the low frequency passive crossover, its inherent losses, potentially poor linearity and crossover point inaccuracy 4. Reduction of the difficulty of the load presented to the power amplifier 5. No padding is required to align the driver sensitivities, so we are not simply wasting power, and we can choose the speakers based on what we need 6. The damping factor is greatly improved for both the low and midrange loudspeakers 7. Complete freedom from any interaction between the loudspeaker driver (and its environment) and the crossover network 8. Cost savings, since complex passive crossover networks are not needed. And with a line array they are very complex. 9. Tri-wiring is included free! 10. The flexibility to choose amplifiers which are at their best within a defined frequency range--as I did for each section of the array 11. Ability to match amplifier power to the exact requirements of the drivers for maximum overall efficiency |
Hi :) I'm brand new to this forum and love the opinions on active VS passive speakers. For what its worth, I am listening to a pair of active Edifier R1700BT PC/desktop speakers (Annie Lennox "Into The West" 44/320k) that absolutely burn to the ground Andrew Jones ELACs in my living room running off a 100 W/8ohms Yamaha amp. Imaging is outstanding. Vocals are good enough to make one weep... damn these are clean. A sub makes these perfect. Purr-fect. I think I paid $150 for the Edifiers off Amazon two years ago, and they have even better models available now. So although investing $10k in a pair of active mains might be scary as hell, the examples set by some of the least expensive, quality actives point to excellence. |
New to this forum also. After many years and tens of thousands of dollars on speakers and equipment, the one thing I learnt was that the room has the most impact on SQ. My hifi system has always been setup in the main living area of our home so all the family and friends can enjoy music. Acoustic treatment in living room spaces are very difficult to implement. About a year ago I came across a review of the Kii Threes and in reading up on active speakers came across the Dutch & Dutch 8c. A very accomodating retailer of both allowed me to demo them in my home at the same time. A long story short, I ended up selling my multi component, expensive cabling and huge speakers and purchasing the Kii Three. The D&D 8c and Kii Three were very similar, D&D slightly warmer and more low end, but I found I could tailor the Kii Three using the built in EQ & contour settings to suit my room and music listening enjoyment. The Kii Three won out mainly due to that my family and I preferred the look of them, they suited our decor and most importantly the Kii Control which D&D don’t currently have. Both the Kii Three and D&D 8c are very good at removing most of the room interactions and sound absolutely amazing. If your music listening takes place mainly in the main living area, you want to get the best SQ out of the room and you need ease of use for other family, either of these are worth considering. |
